Like the NEX from Sony, Canon, assuming some day they do make a mirrorless camera, it will not be a "micro four-thirds" camera.

Sony's mirrorless NEX models are based on their larger aps-c sensor, and no doubt anything Canon makes will be based on the same larger-sized sensor used in their DSLR's such as the 60D and Digital Rebels. The four-thirds sensor used by Panasonic and Olympus is smaller, with a 2x converaion rate compared to the 35mm format, while Canon and Sony use a bigger sensor at 1.5x or 1.6x conversion rates. Nikon 1 and Pentax Q mirrorless cameras use a sensor smaller than the one used by Olympus and Panasonic.

The only companies making four-thirds cameras are Panasonic and Olympus. I know, you should never say never, but I think it's pretty safe to say there will never be a four-thirds camera made by Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony.

Canon is certain to lose sales of their G12 to micro 4/3rds camera manufacturers. It was a no brainer for me....Olympus E-PL2 with 14-40mm II lens versus the Canon G12 for just a little bit more money. Those were the two I was comparing. The Nikon J1 and V1 were too much money for what you get. Didn't like the appearance of those as well.

The Nikons are, without a doubt, ugly, ugly cameras, but they will sell very well because they are Nikons and, because Nikon is promoting the hell out of them. They had huge in-game ads during the baseball World Series and I have seen constant Nikon 1 ads during other sporting events and prime time shows with that goony Ashton Kutcher. Olympus ran lots of Pen ads up front for a while, but it's been forever since I last saw anything on television regarding the Pen.

Olympus is an extremely marketing-challenged company that just does not seem to get it when it comes to promoting their digital imaging products. It's not like selling endoscopes, where you've got a professional community that knows what they need to buy. Olympus makes great devices for exploring one's backside, but when it comes to promoting their photographic products, they seem to have their heads buried in their own back side, and companies like Nikon and Canon, like they always have done, will outsell them because of it when they decide to compete.

Olympus is an extremely marketing-challenged company that just does not seem to get it when it comes to promoting their digital imaging products. It's not like selling endoscopes, where you've got a professional community that knows what they need to buy. Olympus makes great devices for exploring one's backside, but when it comes to promoting their photographic products, they seem to have their heads buried in their own back side, and companies like Nikon and Canon, like they always have done, will outsell them because of it when they decide to compete.

Couldn't agree with you more as Olympus along with Panasonic had the mirror less camera market all to themselves and they really didn't do anything to exploit that advantage.

Granted, there will always be people out there who will not buy any camera that doesn't have a Canon or Nikon name on it. But, can you imagine if Olympus had hired someone like Taylor Swift or Justin what's his face as their spokesperson. They would have had kids dragging their moms to the camera store to pick one up.

Maybe the Olympus marketing people were trying to figure out how to put a positive spin on losing 4.9billion dollars

Greg, I feel that if a person is interested in a M43 camera, most buyers, like myself, will likely research/read reviews of several models before pulling the trigger. A TV ad does little for me in my decision making. Canon and Nikon are virtual household words and likely due to advertising as you stated. So when someone wants to spend a few hundred on a camera, those two models come to mind first because of advertising. I agree with you on Olympus marketing. Their products are very comparable quality wise to those of Canon and Nikon and advertising would at least let folks be aware that there is another quality camera manufacturer to include in their decision making.

It's not a no brainer for me. Why do I want a Micro 4/3rds anything, that's as much junk to haul as a maxi 1. You are back to multiple lenses, besides they look like a small row boat, with the smoke stack from the queen mary on them; "ridiculous".

I would by far rather have my G12 over the bulk, and junk you will have to haul to realize the advantage of any "small format system". I considered all these, and a DSLR also before I bought my last camera, you don't have to wonder long which came out on top, the G12. I have at least 90% of the advantages, with 1/10 the bulk of camera, and accessories.

I'm guessing you'll see something from Canon now that Nikon has jumped on board. It's a tough market decision for Canon:

1) they have a heavy and continued investment in lenses for full frame cameras.

2) without smaller lenses, a lot of the benefit of mirror less is somewhat lessened. I mean, if you're going to attach a 70-200 2.8 lens to it, you're not getting much benefit making a smaller body that will be clumsy to handle.

3) Canon has wildly successful "G" series cameras as you noted. As well as the usual dizzying array of other digicams.

4) Canon's "Rebel" line of DSLRs (xxxD camera bodies) are commercially very successful.

So, Canon is in a bit of a pickle. To take advantage of the mirror less market they need to also design smaller lenses. That means they are splitting up their R&D money. They're also going to rob from their Rebel line and "G" series digicams. There's not an easy answer to the problem. And, to be honest, until Nikon jumped on the band wagon, there wasn't the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. Now there is.